Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:lulz.

Ah, if only I had not stepped down as a moderator. I would have banned you immediately for that off color comment. I hardly think that Byblos' family has anything to do with this, and I'm sure she is HIGHLY offended (and rightfully so!), but in any case, I certainly appreciate your agreement--however begrudgingly, that truth is always absolute. I'm not sure how that fits in with your new-found Christianity, but I guess that is between you and God.

edit:

I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

For the record, how can you objectively say that no one knows objective truth? Self-contradictions ftw . . .

Wow, you would ban me for laughing at someone accusing me of being a racist child torturer?
Where did I say ANYTHING about anyones family? What are you even talking about I wrote four letters, they mean the same thing as 'LOL.'

For the record: Its my personal opinion, and I don't claim it to be the truth. I don't claim to know the truth.

Do you claim to know the objective truth?

qq wrote:lulz

* lulz: Often used to denote laughter at someone who is the victim of a prank, or a reason for performing an action. Can be used as a noun — e.g. "do it for the lulz." This variation is often used on 4chan image boards. According to a New York Times article about Internet trolling, "lulz means the joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium."[24]


Lulz is a corruption of lol, meaning laugh out loud, a lulz is obtained by pulling random pranks such as messing with online kids games.

lulz

* laughs at another person's expense.

In trolling, as a rule, the more people you [have a beer], the better; what matters are the lulz - the laughs you get from trashing someone's peace of mind.

-- "The Assclown Offensive: How to Enrage the Church of Scientology", Wired, Julian Dibbell, September 2009

qq, obviously you have made up your mind. Given your numerous posts, it is clear that you have made up your mind. Given the guidelines, are you sure that this discussion forum is right for you? It seems quite clear that you are not here with genuine questions, or, perhaps more accurately, you are not here genuinely seeking answers.

Let's get this discussion back to clear, serious debate.

The point everyone here seems to be making is that your foundational statement concerning personal truths seems a bit bizarre when you want to resist any of our explanations. YOU came HERE.

qq wrote:we can not be sure of anything, this is why I consider myself agnostic.

Then since OUR personal truths are just as valid as yours and YOU came here to this discussion forum, then allow us to explain our personal truths and why we think that they are true.

P.S. My vote is not to ban him until he just sallys over the top... lol. Lord knows I've done it once or twice. The bottom line is he's dumb but entertaining and since there's no real scholarly people, though touchingcloth comes close sometimes, to entertain us what does it hurt. And you never know, some good might come from him being exposed to people 100x more informed than himself. Let's not forget how MUCH God loves him. It's a lot people. More than we understand.

^ I know I know there was a nice way to say this. What a colossal you know what I look here. Let's try it this way:

Don't ban him. I think he likes it here and will learn a lot. We have many good posters here from many different points of view. God loves us all a great deal.


Ok. That's much better and what I really want to say. Sometimes I just get carried away...

zoegirl wrote:

qq wrote:lulz

* lulz: Often used to denote laughter at someone who is the victim of a prank, or a reason for performing an action. Can be used as a noun — e.g. "do it for the lulz." This variation is often used on 4chan image boards. According to a New York Times article about Internet trolling, "lulz means the joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium."[24]


Lulz is a corruption of lol, meaning laugh out loud, a lulz is obtained by pulling random pranks such as messing with online kids games.

lulz

* laughs at another person's expense.

In trolling, as a rule, the more people you [have a beer], the better; what matters are the lulz - the laughs you get from trashing someone's peace of mind.

-- "The Assclown Offensive: How to Enrage the Church of Scientology", Wired, Julian Dibbell, September 2009

qq, obviously you have made up your mind. Given your numerous posts, it is clear that you have made up your mind. Given the guidelines, are you sure that this discussion forum is right for you? It seems quite clear that you are not here with genuine questions, or, perhaps more accurately, you are not here genuinely seeking answers.

Let's get this discussion back to clear, serious debate.

The point everyone here seems to be making is that your foundational statement concerning personal truths seems a bit bizarre when you want to resist any of our explanations. YOU came HERE.

qq wrote:we can not be sure of anything, this is why I consider myself agnostic.

Then since OUR personal truths are just as valid as yours and YOU came here to this discussion forum, then allow us to explain our personal truths and why we think that they are true.

Er, sorry I never looked up the definition of lulz before. I was trying to rob him the emotion satisfaction he was clearly looking for by calling me a racist child torturer. But you looked way to far into my lol comment. I say lulz when I laugh, I think it looks funnier than lol, that is all I meant by it.

The only thing thats clear to me is how quickly you made up your mind about me.

Ok its all of your turns now (apparently) so each of you go one by one explain your truths and why you think they are true.

The point (I believe) that jac was trying to make is that when you declare something like "personal truth" then anything is fair game. HE can call you anything. If you think child-torturer is bad, then who do you think you are?!?!? How dare you judge them?!?!? The pedophile's personal truth may be different from yours but so what? The Nazi's personal truth( and you yourself declared personal truth to be synonymous to opinion) may be ugly to you but so what? If the absolute truth is unknowable then their *opinion* is just as valid.

(Jac If I am totally off base, then by all means clear the air)

You can call me a jerk-face scumbag and I can't really argue with you can I? I can call you a weasel face fool (I don't think that but for the sake of argument...) If my personal truth is such that I think it, then it must be true for me.

You're getting all uptight because of some declarations that, from your own philosophy, you don't have a right to be offended.

If you are here to truly ask questions, then by all means. Going by the definition I found about lulz and your myriad of posts that didn't seem to indicate genuine interest, yes, it seemed clear. By all means, prove me wrong.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Wow, you would ban me for laughing at someone accusing me of being a racist child torturer?
Where did I say ANYTHING about anyones family? What are you even talking about I wrote four letters, they mean the same thing as 'LOL.'

For the record: Its my personal opinion, and I don't claim it to be the truth. I don't claim to know the truth.

Do you claim to know the objective truth?

What? You take offense to my personal truth? My personal truth is that you said those things. Clearly, since I can't know objective truth, I can't know that you did or didn't say them. And you can't know what I did or didn't say.

But further: suppose I did ban you for being a child raping torturer even if I knew you didn't say those things. So what? Is that wrong? Says who? You? Who cares? Nothing is objective. There is no such thing as "fair" or "unfair" in your worldview. It is all a matter of personal opinion.

Of course, the irony in all this is that you DO believe that would be wrong. You DO believe in objective truth. You DO believe in absolute truth. After all, you actually expect me to objectively know what your words mean (or, at least, know what they don't mean). You object if I try to read my own ideas into it. You insist that I take your words to mean what you meant them to mean. So if I accuse you of loving to rape children, you can rightfully say that you never said that. But you can ONLY offer that defense if we can know objective truth.

So, can you admit that we know objective truth, or should I interpret your words as an admission that you wish Hitler had won and all the dirty Jews had been killed? After all, if there is no objective truth, then I have no way of knowing that is NOT what you meant . . . and hey, if there is no objective truth, neither of us should be offended by that. After all, "dirty Jews" have no more objective value than the scum on the bottom of your foot.

edit: I'm not trying to be harsh. I'm trying to get you to see the downright silliness of your point. Truth is Truth, complete with a capital T, and you can know it, as you are evidencing in this thread. That's all I am trying to get you to see.

All this "personal truth" stuff is a bit simplistic.

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Wow, you would ban me for laughing at someone accusing me of being a racist child torturer?
Where did I say ANYTHING about anyones family? What are you even talking about I wrote four letters, they mean the same thing as 'LOL.'

For the record: Its my personal opinion, and I don't claim it to be the truth. I don't claim to know the truth.

Do you claim to know the objective truth?

What? You take offense to my personal truth? My personal truth is that you said those things. Clearly, since I can't know objective truth, I can't know that you did or didn't say them. And you can't know what I did or didn't say.

But further: suppose I did ban you for being a child raping torturer even if I knew you didn't say those things. So what? Is that wrong? Says who? You? Who cares? Nothing is objective. There is no such thing as "fair" or "unfair" in your worldview. It is all a matter of personal opinion.

Of course, the irony in all this is that you DO believe that would be wrong. You DO believe in objective truth. You DO believe in absolute truth. After all, you actually expect me to objectively know what your words mean (or, at least, know what they don't mean). You object if I try to read my own ideas into it. You insist that I take your words to mean what you meant them to mean. So if I accuse you of loving to rape children, you can rightfully say that you never said that. But you can ONLY offer that defense if we can know objective truth.

So, can you admit that we know objective truth, or should I interpret your words as an admission that you wish Hitler had won and all the dirty Jews had been killed? After all, if there is no objective truth, then I have no way of knowing that is NOT what you meant . . . and hey, if there is no objective truth, neither of us should be offended by that. After all, "dirty Jews" have no more objective value than the scum on the bottom of your foot.

edit: I'm not trying to be harsh. I'm trying to get you to see the downright silliness of your point. Truth is Truth, complete with a capital T, and you can know it, as you are evidencing in this thread. That's all I am trying to get you to see.

Well if you had read my posts I did already say that I believe absolute truth exists. I was also saying, I'm not perfect, my perception of the world IS flawed, I simply don't claim that what I believe IS THE absolute truth. Parts of it could be, maybe I know the secret to the universe, I bet you'd agree with me that that is doubtful.

Our clearly different perspective on the two words 'personal truth' basically proved to me my point about person truths, i thought i was silly too.

touchingcloth wrote:All this "personal truth" stuff is a bit simplistic.

Simplified too much? Because I can't get my point across and I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. :/

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Well if you had read my posts I did already say that I believe absolute truth exists. I was also saying, I'm not perfect, my perception of the world IS flawed, I simply don't claim that what I believe IS THE absolute truth. Parts of it could be, maybe I know the secret to the universe, I bet you'd agree with me that that is doubtful.

Our clearly different perspective on the two words 'personal truth' basically proved to me my point about person truths, i thought i was silly too.

I was responding to your argument that you didn't need evidence for your ideas about the universe, because it was your own personal truth. You then went on to argue that you can't know things objectively, hence my point.

Now, first, I assume you are backing off your claim that you can't know things objectively. That is good, because it is evident that you can. Second, I hope you can see that "personal truth" is a self-contradiction. Something is either true or it isn't. If we can have "personal truth" then, to go back to my over-the-top illustration, I can take everything you say in an absurd manner and that could be my "personal truth." I would apparently need no more evidence that it is really true than you do for your multiverse. Of course, you would object to that, which is precisely why I am pointing all this out to you. If you have no evidence for your "personal truth" with reference to the multiverse, then you have nothing but blind faith. I, for one, am not a fan of blind faith . . . if we can believe that, why not believe that there is a giant, invisible spaghetti monster orbiting the earth that brings presents to all the kiddies on Christmas? Don't bother with evidence. Personal truth, right?

So, as TC pointed out, this is all rather silly. Would you like to have an actual discussion about WHY we should believe what we do--be it in God or not, creation or evolution, Christianity or any other religion, etc.--or would you rather just ignore reality and insist on "personal truth" and all the while be inconsistent when in that you expect people to take your statements, not as "personal truth," but as real truth?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:All this "personal truth" stuff is a bit simplistic.

Simplified too much? Because I can't get my point across and I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. :/

Simplistic in that (forgetting the descent into Godwin's) the argument seems to be coming across is that all we have is a Nazi's personal truth vs someone else's personal truth.

touchingcloth wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:All this "personal truth" stuff is a bit simplistic.

Simplified too much? Because I can't get my point across and I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. :/

Simplistic in that (forgetting the descent into Godwin's) the argument seems to be coming across is that all we have is a Nazi's personal truth vs someone else's personal truth.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may have you confused with someone else), but haven't you argued in the past for the possibility of objective morality apart from God? If so, perhaps a better illustration than Nazism for you would have been the Flat Earth Society? What the Nazis did was morally objectionable, not scientifically so (unless you want to comment on the one narrow issue of Aryans being further evolved than blacks or Jews).

We can leave the morality discussion to the morality thread(s), but outside of an objective moral reality rooted in something other than the human mind (collective or individual), then you DO have " Nazi's personal truth vs someone else's personal truth." So, again, your point, which I agree with, may be better made with reference to the the flat earth, steady state theory, or other such nonsense.

Jac3510 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may have you confused with someone else), but haven't you argued in the past for the possibility of objective morality apart from God? If so, perhaps a better illustration than Nazism for you would have been the Flat Earth Society? What the Nazis did was morally objectionable, not scientifically so (unless you want to comment on the one narrow issue of Aryans being further evolved than blacks or Jews).

We can leave the morality discussion to the morality thread(s), but outside of an objective moral reality rooted in something other than the human mind (collective or individual), then you DO have " Nazi's personal truth vs someone else's personal truth." So, again, your point, which I agree with, may be better made with reference to the the flat earth, steady state theory, or other such nonsense.

I did purposefully use singular terms (your truth vs a Nazis truth), because the more complex reality is that it's the "truth" of the Nazis vs the "truth" of just about anyone else. The dichotomy that either a) objective truth exists or b) it doesn't exist therefore we should respect the Nazis' personal truths, is simply false. In case a) there is the possibility that the objective truth includes the superiority of the aryan race (objective doesn't have to = nice) and in case b) there's the personal "truth" of the minorities who suffered at the hands of the Nazis to be considered - and their truth presumably included a desire for life and liberty.

Again in case b) there's nothing stopping us bystanders who are neither Nazis nor persecuted from acting on our own personal "truth" to either side with the Nazis or to decry them. Thankfully a very very large amount of people's personal "truths" includes the belief that another person should not be deprived of their life except for in extraordinary circumstances. I'm sure most Nazis had/have similar beliefs, but differed in the belief as to whether or not diluting the Aryan race constitutes "extraordinary circumstances".

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

B. W. wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:"I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH." This is what I said, and your mind somehow twists that into you thinking I believe my opinions are above objective truth. I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

This universe could be virtual reality that our astral bodies made to explore a different realm, or this entire world could be a product of your mind, or some super beings mind, this whole thing could be a dream or a thought. I simply don't claim to know the truth, and you say I claim to know above the truth.

You do know objective truth...

Denying it does make it relative...

Oh yes, every non-christian knows christianity is truth but denies it in order to guiltlessly sin, is that what you're saying?

NO qqMOARpewpew, Point is...

Is Death Certain?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

B. W. wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:"I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH." This is what I said, and your mind somehow twists that into you thinking I believe my opinions are above objective truth. I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

This universe could be virtual reality that our astral bodies made to explore a different realm, or this entire world could be a product of your mind, or some super beings mind, this whole thing could be a dream or a thought. I simply don't claim to know the truth, and you say I claim to know above the truth.

You do know objective truth...

Denying it does make it relative...

Oh yes, every non-christian knows christianity is truth but denies it in order to guiltlessly sin, is that what you're saying?

NO qqMOARpewpew, Point is...

Is Death Certain?
-
-
-

Not to people who believe everyone will live forever either (in some eternal aftelife), they believe that physical death is certain, but not spiritual death, and since we are really just spiritual being trapped in these physical forms its not death. Or that's how I view it.

I believe death is certain and final.